In re Pablo C. CA2/4

── In re Pablo C. CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/19/26 In re Pablo C. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR In re PABLO C., a Person Coming B345657 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP02557A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.S., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed. Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.  Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________________________ Pablo C. (born 2017) was declared a dependent of the juvenile court in 2022, and adoption was ordered as his permanent plan in 2024. S.S. (mother) appeals from an order issued after a permanency planning review hearing in February 2025. She contends the court erred in continuing to designate adoption as Pablo’s permanent plan because his maternal grandmother (grandmother) was never assessed for placement. We conclude mother forfeited her claim of error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In August 2022, the juvenile court declared Pablo a dependent based on a petition alleging a history of domestic violence between mother and a boyfriend in front of Pablo, mother’s permitting a current methamphetamine user to reside with and have unlimited access to Pablo, and mother’s mental and emotional problems that led to a suicide attempt. Reunification services were ordered for mother, including a 1 We do not recite the entire factual and procedural background, as the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its history. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) Undesignated statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 psychiatric evaluation, counseling, and drug testing.2 Pablo was placed with foster parents. At the 12-month review hearing in August 2023, the court terminated reunification services due to mother’s unsubstantial progress and set a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing for January 2024. At the August hearing, mother requested that grandmother be considered for placement. The court ordered mother’s counsel to prepare a relative information form with grandmother’s information, but no such form appears in the record, and DCFS’s reports do not indicate it ever received one. DCFS assigned an adoption social worker to explore permanency options for Pablo. At the initial section 366.26 hearing in January 2024, mother’s counsel objected to the termination of mother’s parental rights and offered a candidate for Pablo’s permanent placement, Graciela G., the partner of maternal grandfather. The court did not terminate parental rights and ordered DCFS to follow up with Graciela G. It continued the section 366.26 hearing to May 2024. A permanency planning review hearing was conducted in February 2024. The court found DCFS made reasonable efforts and took necessary steps to finalize Pablo’s permanent placement, and it ordered placement in foster care with adoption as the permanent pl